FUCK TWITTER!!!

[Grayswandir]

Could you stop strawmanning my point and answer at least a couple of my questions? Thanks.

I'm particularly curious about what conservative viewpoints I can get banned for on Twitter. Will I get banned for saying that social services should receive less funding?

I don’t know, why don’t you try and see for yourself? Who the fuck am I strawmanning for fuck’s sake? Lol

[Grayswandir]

Your first amendment rights dissipate the second you incite violence. There is no freedom of speech on shit like that.

Sure. But it should be the law who decides that, not Twitter. I’m not saying that there aren’t reasonable restrictions on free speech, just that Twitter shouldn’t be the one calling the shots.

[Grayswandir]

Create Parler 2.0 and moderate it. Creating a safe space to commit violence is a no no, though. Peoples' lives are at stake. Or do you like giving a platform to people to plan things where police end up dying?

Google already does that. I gotta use duckduckgo to find torrents sometimes. Use a different search engine. Capitalism, free market and all that.

I also use DuckDuckGo been using it for over 3 years. It’s slower than Google but the results are noticeably different. Not necessarily less or more biased, just different. The one thing that sucks about it is image search, which is pretty bad on DDG compared to Google.

[Grayswandir]

Did you reply to me @Grayswandir ?

I didn’t even understand your question so no
What is the part of Merkel’s answer that I’m ignoring?

[Renegade]

"We will never give up we will never concede"

"We will never take our country back with weakness"

Wut did he mean by dis

[Renegade]

"Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!"



Wut did he mean by dis

[Renegade]

Wut did she mean by dis

[oops_ur_dead]

I don’t know, why don’t you try and see for yourself? Who the fuck am I strawmanning for fuck’s sake? Lol

"Conservative opinions are being banned on Twitter"
"What conservative opinions?"
"I don't know"

What problem do you have with Twitter, again?

[Grayswandir]

Dude if you cant admit Twitter has an anti-conservative bias you’ve either been living under a rock for the past century or are just plain stupid. In your case I think its the latter.

[SuperJack]

"Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!"

Spoiler : pic :

Wut did he mean by dis

Why the fuck is there a cheap knock off of Doctor Who lurking around?

[oops_ur_dead]

Not sure why you're resorting to ad-hom attacks here, my dude.

I'm trying to ask you very directly what kind of conservative opinions will get one banned on Twitter because I want to understand your position. Can you not answer that? Surely, if there's an anti-conservative bias, you can give examples of the type of stuff people have been getting banned for on Twitter that you think are unacceptable because they are legitimate conservative opinions and viewpoints. Why aren't you able to do that?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I'd kindly like to point out that this:

JACK "JACKASS" DORSEY IS A LOSER & A MAN WHO LIKES SEEING HIS WIFE WITH OTHER MEN, NAMELY AMERICAN HEROES LIKE MYSELF. HE WAS SUCH A LOSER THAT HE DECIDED TO PERMANENTLY BAN MY ACCOUNT OF OVER 90 MILLION FOLLOWERS (the amount of votes I would've gotten if the election wasn't STOLEN by JOE "WHO?" BIDEN and the DUMBOCRATS) TO SILENCE THE MAJORITY. BUT OUT OF MERCY, I SHALL DECIDE TO PEACEFULLY TRANSFER POWER BY INAUGURATION DAY. WE MUST & WILL RESPECT LAW ENFORCEMENT, AS GOOD AMERICANS DO. BUT THIS IS NOT OVER! WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

is the cause of this thread, so let's not get carried away from the fun, gentlemen.

[SuperJack]

Spoiler : Catch up For Grey :

I didn’t even understand your question so no
What is the part of Merkel’s answer that I’m ignoring?

Firstly, you mentioned Merkel with lack of quotes or link so I engaged and quoted what I think you may of been referring too and asked to clarify it.

.The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms

This is what you ment when referring to Merkal?
That to me sounds more like she is blaming lack of laws to censor freedom of speech instead of the business having to do it. That is not in trump's favours and, if anything, would most likely censor him more/earlier.

This was Ignored, or answered with a reply that has a vague relation but in no way easily noticeable as a reply. So I nudged you.

@Grayswandir
Sill waiting a response on Merkal and Newspapers.

So you want me to bring it up again

Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question

Which I did

You mentioned something Merkal said that supported your ideals, wanted to find out what it was and if I had the correct quote.

And if you wanted to control social media, would newspapers need the same treatment? Since they are perhaps the extreme of one sided views and censorship, along with tv news channels and their websites.

You finally comment, don't really clarify we are talking about the same quote, and only agree on the select part where Merkel says private companies should be the ones to decide and ignore the part where she said its because there should be laws in place that restrict free speech so that private companies don't have to make that decision.
(It would be like me saying "We should save lives by killing 95% of the population" and you then use it by saying "I agree with SJ we should save lives")

Then you select Murdoch as an example of what would happen if a rich person controlled the distribution of information. But this already happens and Murdoch already does this and it heavily influences politics.

And then you claim newspapers don't matter and they don't go out there way to paint a certain candidate (Which has been and still is easily disprovable) followed by you claiming you don't even know if they do or not. Which is a horrible way to make your point "X is true about Y, but you can't blame me if I'm wrong because I don't know"

Oh yeh. About Merkel. I agree with her that private companies shouldn’t be the ones to decide if a public figure is to talk to the populace or not (it should be the government, courts of law, ect). Otherwise, you can have a really rich person with their own agenda controlling political communication (and obviously also making politicians who don’t want to be censored sing their tune - whatever that happens to be). Imagine if Murdoch was the one who owned Twitter and was censoring Biden for *insert reason here*. When maybe he didn’t do that, and even if he did its not Murdochs call to decide if Biden gets to talk to people. Now that I put it in those terms I’m honestly surprised this is legal at all. Can we call this insurrection, mutiny? I think the proper term is sedition, but yeah.

Newspapers dont really have the same influenxe they used to have, the main issue would be if newspapers were going out of their way to paint a certain candidate in a certain manner. Technically laws already exist against libel, although with public figures theyre seldom applied. There is an issue with newspapers being sensationalist, and that’s existed since time immemorial. Although I suspect its gotten worse recently. Its hard to tell bc I dont read newspapers so I dont know how biased they can really get.

At this point I point out
-You can't agree with restricting social media, if you are fine with other media moguls like Murdoch (Which you poorly used as an example) being able to control media
-You can't agree with only part of a statement from a leader and disregard the rest of what the said
-When mentioned newspapers, I was rather referring to the entire media of Paper/TV/Internet in which is already controlled.
-Newspapers are also not obsolete and still have a huge impact in politics

I mean what you say about Murdochs already happens. And a vast majority of adults still pay attention to the newspapers. I may of allowed you to use the smallest example as a point, what I was mostly refering was media, so newspapers/TV/Online News. I just said newspapers to try and make it more simple. There is a free allowance of censorship and selective viewpoints controlled by humongous companies controlled by either one or few billionaires. Why is it fare to target social media and not these others?

And no, you can't do that with Merkal. You cant cut her opinion in half, throw away the part you don't want to hear and then use the other half to push your point across. Please comment on this further.

And you use the term papers but that isn't the full extent.

Firstly you have every grocery retailer advertising their newspapers either with POS signage or/and main foot traffic areas with their front page aggressive putting forward the most eye-catching memorable headlines so even if you don't buy one, your still being their information.

You have sets of "free" papers in various locations, we tend to have them on trains, free to take from shops, inside of waiting rooms and inside of staff areas and canteens.

You then have all these newspapers online, infiltrating every social media and many other webpages trying to get you onto their site.

You then have the broadcasted ones, from the many news channels or giant empires like Sky and Fox which they also use to push their personal goals.

So yeh. Sure the younger Generation don't buy or read physical newspapers, but they are certainly easily targeted and also totally vulnerable.

We just use the term newspapers for ease.

And you can't agree with (or accept it at a cost) these media Monguls and be fine with how much control they have yet get unequally upset when social media does something which upsets you. That's just hypocritical.

You still can't understand me. So here we go AGAIN. (Will number them for easier reply's, but feel free to refer to earlier posts.)

1). Which statement from Merkel are you referring to?


2). If it is

.The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms

It is incorrect to agree with only part of the statement (Where she says its not for social media to have to decide)
Whilst ignoring the rest of the statement (Where she says laws should be put in place to stop the free speech instead of the social media)
so, you either believe in free speech, or you believe in censorship which is it?


3)How is it fair to restrict social media in fear of allowing billionaires to control political information, yet not treat the rest of the media with the same passion (Newspapers/TV/Online News) which already have billionaires controlling political information?


4)We have shown how important "Newspapers" are. and we have shown that other media already heavily control politics (Like Murdoch).
Do you agree with this?
5)Is this a problem?

[Renegade]

I'd kindly like to point out that this:


is the cause of this thread, so let's not get carried away from the fun, gentlemen.

Don't censor us.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Don't censor us.

FREEZEPEACH!!!

can i negrep you at least

[Renegade]

FREEZEPEACH!!!

can i negrep you at least

Why? My contributions are perfectly on topic.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Why? My contributions are perfectly on topic.

Does a post need to be off-topic for it to be negrepped? :P

[Light_Yagami]

[Donald J. Trump]

LIGHT YAGAMI, THE LOSER JAPANOAMERICAN, IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN NANCY "TRANNY" PELOSI, WHICH IS QUITE THE ACHIEVEMENT!

[Grayswandir]

Spoiler : Catch up For Grey :

Firstly, you mentioned Merkel with lack of quotes or link so I engaged and quoted what I think you may of been referring too and asked to clarify it.

This was Ignored, or answered with a reply that has a vague relation but in no way easily noticeable as a reply. So I nudged you.


So you want me to bring it up again



Which I did



You finally comment, don't really clarify we are talking about the same quote, and only agree on the select part where Merkel says private companies should be the ones to decide and ignore the part where she said its because there should be laws in place that restrict free speech so that private companies don't have to make that decision.
(It would be like me saying "We should save lives by killing 95% of the population" and you then use it by saying "I agree with SJ we should save lives")

Then you select Murdoch as an example of what would happen if a rich person controlled the distribution of information. But this already happens and Murdoch already does this and it heavily influences politics.

And then you claim newspapers don't matter and they don't go out there way to paint a certain candidate (Which has been and still is easily disprovable) followed by you claiming you don't even know if they do or not. Which is a horrible way to make your point "X is true about Y, but you can't blame me if I'm wrong because I don't know"




At this point I point out
-You can't agree with restricting social media, if you are fine with other media moguls like Murdoch (Which you poorly used as an example) being able to control media
-You can't agree with only part of a statement from a leader and disregard the rest of what the said
-When mentioned newspapers, I was rather referring to the entire media of Paper/TV/Internet in which is already controlled.
-Newspapers are also not obsolete and still have a huge impact in politics

You still can't understand me. So here we go AGAIN. (Will number them for easier reply's, but feel free to refer to earlier posts.)

1). Which statement from Merkel are you referring to?


2). If it is

It is incorrect to agree with only part of the statement (Where she says its not for social media to have to decide)
Whilst ignoring the rest of the statement (Where she says laws should be put in place to stop the free speech instead of the social media)
so, you either believe in free speech, or you believe in censorship which is it?


3)How is it fair to restrict social media in fear of allowing billionaires to control political information, yet not treat the rest of the media with the same passion (Newspapers/TV/Online News) which already have billionaires controlling political information?


4)We have shown how important "Newspapers" are. and we have shown that other media already heavily control politics (Like Murdoch).
Do you agree with this?
5)Is this a problem?

1. Yes
2. I don’t think Trump should be censored even on legal grounds; free speech is paramount, but there are reasonable restrictions on free speech. The point is that not just anyone can censor speech if they feel like it for arbitrary reasons; restricting this ‘right’, if you want to call it that, to a government, ensures that only truly disruptive speech is censored (and only after found to be so in court of law. Remember that when a restriction on free speech is challenged in court, it is always assumed to be invalid unless proved otherwise - the Government has to make a case that the defendant should have their speech restricted. This is distinct from Twitter decidint on their own to censor the most powerful person in the world, a person which they share a fundamental disagreement with politically (conflict of interest)).
3. I will take a think about this
4. Yes
5. I don’t think it is, but that’s just a gut feeling on my part. Newspapers have been influencing ppl forever, but I have an issue with how some of them engage in... literal character assassinations. I am fairly certain this is mainly a US phenomenon, but I see no real end to that.

[oops_ur_dead]

1. Yes
2. I don’t think Trump should be censored even on legal grounds; free speech is paramount, but there are reasonable restrictions on free speech. The point is that not just anyone can censor speech if they feel like it for arbitrary reasons; restricting this ‘right’, if you want to call it that, to a government, ensures that only truly disruptive speech is censored (and only after found to be so in court of law. Remember that when a restriction on free speech is challenged in court, it is always assumed to be invalid unless proved otherwise - the Government has to make a case that the defendant should have their speech restricted. This is distinct from Twitter decidint on their own to censor the most powerful person in the world, a person which they share a fundamental disagreement with politically (conflict of interest)).
3. I will take a think about this
4. Yes
5. I don’t think it is, but that’s just a gut feeling on my part. Newspapers have been influencing ppl forever, but I have an issue with how some of them engage in... literal character assassinations. I am fairly certain this is mainly a US phenomenon, but I see no real end to that.

Hey man, could you tell me what conservative viewpoints one will get banned on Twitter for discussing or having?

[rumox]

I found an article saying these are conservative viewpoints that will get you banned:

Violent threats, harassment, inciting violence, targeted abuse, doxxing, pro-Nazi tweets, and racist slurs.

Is a joke

[Grayswandir]

Donald Trump got banned from Twitter for being a conservative. Lol!

[DJarJar]

like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods

[oops_ur_dead]

Donald Trump got banned from Twitter for being a conservative. Lol!

Hey man, can you give me at least one example of a conservative opinion or viewpoint that will get you banned on Twitter? I just want to clarify your point so I can understand and discuss it, thanks.

[SuperJack]

Hey man, can you give me at least one example of a conservative opinion or viewpoint that will get you banned on Twitter? I just want to clarify your point so I can understand and discuss it, thanks.

I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it.

[oops_ur_dead]

I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it.

I've really gotta wonder why. Its not like it should be a particularly difficult question, I'm just asking him to clarify and expand on his original point. That's like the easiest question one will ever be asked in a discussion or debate.

[Grayswandir]

I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it.

Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine.

Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^

[oops_ur_dead]

Who has been banned for Conservative viewpoints on immigration and COVID-19? What viewpoints were those?

[yzb25]

Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine.

Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^

It's not passive aggressive at all. When we talked about police brutality, you asked us for examples and evidence of everything, and grilled each piece of information we gave - Can you prove that violence was unnecessary there? Is this truly indicative of a greater trend? What statistics irrefutably demonstrate that? That was completely fine, because if I have a problem with something the burden is on me to explain it. If you think twitter is unfairly targetting conservative viewpoints, you should be able to at least cite these cases and outline your problem. You cannot expect so much from us then get pissed when we expect the bare minimum from you.

[Grayswandir]

It's not passive aggressive at all. When we talked about police brutality, you asked us for examples and evidence of everything, and grilled each piece of information we gave - Can you prove that violence was unnecessary there? Is this truly indicative of a greater trend? What statistics irrefutably demonstrate that? That was completely fine, because if I have a problem with something the burden is on me to explain it. If you think twitter is unfairly targetting conservative viewpoints, you should be able to at least cite these cases and outline your problem. You cannot expect so much from us then get pissed when we expect the bare minimum from you.

The article rumox linked to said 21/22 of the prominent people Twitter has suspended since 2017 voted or expressed a preference for Donald Trump. The 22nd person got suspended for posting someone’s private phone number (which is against Twitter’s terms). More broadly, someone (don’t remember the name) tweeted something about white people being inferior or some such: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Nothing happened after the person posted said tweet but when Candace Owens (conservative) mimicked her tweets (swapping white for jewish) she got banned. Eventually she got unbanned and asked to delete the tweets. And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one?

[yzb25]

The article rumox linked to said 21/22 of the prominent people Twitter has suspended since 2017 voted or expressed a preference for Donald Trump. The 22nd person got suspended for posting someone’s private phone number (which is against Twitter’s terms). More broadly, someone (don’t remember the name) tweeted something about white people being inferior or some such: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Nothing happened after the person posted said tweet but when Candace Owens (conservative) mimicked her tweets (swapping white for jewish) she got banned. Eventually she got unbanned and asked to delete the tweets. And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one?

Well, this is something, but we're asking for an actual viewpoint. Not a "these people were dicks and got taken off the platform! This person was a dick and wasn't!". Because if your point is "conservatives have a much harder time being racist on twitter than liberals do!" that is a very different point lol

[SuperJack]

Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine.

Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^

It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him.

[Grayswandir]

It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him.

Oh my bad lol. I misread then.

[Grayswandir]

Well, this is something, but we're asking for an actual viewpoint. Not a "these people were dicks and got taken off the platform! This person was a dick and wasn't!". Because if your point is "conservatives have a much harder time being racist on twitter than liberals do!" that is a very different point lol

I will try to look for it, I’ve been finding it quite hard to find specific examples.

[oops_ur_dead]

It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him.

I'm not even trolling man. I'm trying to understand what the dudes argument even is and giving him a chance, and repeating the question because he was avoiding it for some reason. It took three or four reposts of the same question to get him to even acknowledge it.

It's like if you were having a debate with someone about climate change, and one of the people in the debate refuses to even define what climate change is. How can you have any further discussion about the topic when one person hasn't even made an argument?

[oops_ur_dead]

And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one?

Also, I thought you were of the opinion that twitter shouldn't censor people, now you're saying you should be censored for racism?

That makes my question now even more relevant, since I'm wondering what kind of points should Conservatives be allowed to make on Twitter that they're currently being banned for, if you think them being banned for certain viewpoints like racism is ok.

I mean I suppose if your argument is that twitter is more trigger-happy about the rules (rules that you're otherwise ok with them enforcing, that is) when it comes to Conservatives then that's something else and something that can be discussed.